In the context of education, Church and State issues are of growing importance and appear to be increasingly divisive. This volume critically examines the developing jurisprudence relating to religion in the schools beginning with Everson v. Board of Education, where the US Supreme Court discussed the wall of separation between Church and State. The study traces both how the Court's views have evolved during this period and how, through recharacterizations of past opinions and the facts underlying them, the Court has appeared to interpret Establishment Clause guarantees in light of the past jurisprudence when in reality that jurisprudence has been turned on its head. The Court not only offers an unstable jurisprudence that is more likely to promote than avoid the problems that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent, but approaches Establishment Clause issues in a way that decreases the likelihood that an acceptable compromise on these important issues can be reached. The study focuses on the situation in the US but the important issue of religion, education and the state has great relevance in many jurisdictions.

In the context of education, Church and State issues are of growing importance and appear to be increasingly divisive. This volume critically examines the developing jurisprudence relating to religion in the schools beginning with Everson v. Board of Education, where the US Supreme Court discussed the wall of separation between Church and State. The study traces both how the Court's views have evolved during this period and how, through recharacterizations of past opinions and the facts underlying them, the Court has appeared to interpret Establishment Clause guarantees in light of the past jurisprudence when in reality that jurisprudence has been turned on its head. The Court not only offers an unstable jurisprudence that is more likely to promote than avoid the problems that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent, but approaches Establishment Clause issues in a way that decreases the likelihood that an acceptable compromise on these important issues can be reached. The study focuses on the situation in the US but the important issue of religion, education and the state has great relevance in many jurisdictions.

This book exemplifies the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible on the issue of same-sex marriage. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships, and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages.

Proposals to legalize same-sex marriage evoke strong response from those on both sides of the debate. Much has been written about the legal policy issues over the legal recognition of same-sex unions in the United States, yet there has been little dialogue and exchange between participants in the debate. This book attempts to open that dialogue, and to exemplify the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages.

This ideal introduction is designed to lead the reader through the relevant issues, progressing from the general to the particular. Debates are contextualized, offering comparative, historical, and family-policy perspectives, asking fundamental questions such as what is the purpose of a family, and what interests, if any, that state has in promoting a particular type of family over others. Issues of jurisprudence and political philosophy are examined, addressing the public benefits of marriage and equal treatment before the law, among other items. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage or domestic partnership policies is explored. Finally, this book covers the broad implications when states--such as Vermont--legally recognize same-sex unions, and the impact of international recognition of same-sex marriage rights.

This book exemplifies the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible on the issue of same-sex marriage. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships, and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages.

Proposals to legalize same-sex marriage evoke strong response from those on both sides of the debate. Much has been written about the legal policy issues over the legal recognition of same-sex unions in the United States, yet there has been little dialogue and exchange between participants in the debate. This book attempts to open that dialogue, and to exemplify the high quality of thoughtful discussion and debate that is possible. Authors are paired to address and respond to a particular topic, one in favor of state recognition of same-sex relationships and one in favor of limiting state recognition to those relationships that have been traditionally recognized as marriages.

This ideal introduction is designed to lead the reader through the relevant issues, progressing from the general to the particular. Debates are contextualized, offering comparative, historical, and family-policy perspectives, asking fundamental questions such as what is the purpose of a family, and what interests, if any, that state has in promoting a particular type of family over others. Issues of jurisprudence and political philosophy are examined, addressing the public benefits of marriage and equal treatment before the law, among other items. The constitutionality of same-sex marriage or domestic partnership policies is explored. Finally, this book covers the broad implications when states--such as Vermont--legally recognize same-sex unions, and the impact of international recognition of same-sex marriage rights.

The United States Constitution has already been interpreted to provide a variety of family-related protections which, if applied consistently, also protect same-sex couples and their children. Only by radically reformulating and severely undermining existing protections can courts and commentators justify the claim that the Federal Constitution does not offer a wealth of family protections, including the right to marry a same-sex partner.

Discussing the constitutional implications of civil unions with a special focus on how they might be treated in the interstate context, Strasser explains how the courts and commentators have reworked and significantly weakened a variety of constitutional protections in their attempts to establish that same-sex couples are not afforded constitutional protections. He further suggests that the constitutional protections for religion support rather than undermine the constitutional protection of same-sex unions.

In November 1998, the Hawaii and Alaska electorates voted to amend their state constitutions so that same-sex marriages would not have to be recognized. Rather than end the controversy surrounding same-sex marriages, the passage of these amendments will only spur more litigation, because the referenda themselves implicate constitutional guarantees and because amending a state constitution cannot lessen federal constitutional protections. Since same-sex marriages promote many of the same individual and state interests that opposite-sex marriages do, states will be unable to justify their same-sex marriage bans if those rationales are closely examined. When challenged, the recent constitutional amendments in Hawaii and Alaska may well be held unconstitutional by the state supreme courts on federal constitutional grounds, although ultimately the United States Supreme Court will likely be asked to resolve the relevant issues.

Suppose that state same-sex marriage bans are held not to violate federal constitutional guarantees, but that one state nonetheless recognizes such unions. The other states will be permitted to refuse to recognize marriages celebrated in that state only if certain conditions have been met. Contrary view notwithstanding, the law of nature exception will not apply in this case. Further, even the Defense of Marriage Act will likely not afford states the right to refuse to recognize any and all same-sex marriages validly celebrated in sister states.

In a new preface, Mark Strasser discusses recent developments in the legal battle over same-sex marriages in Hawaii. He anticipates the likely state and nationwide impact of the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision. Mark Strasser examines the issue of same-sex marriage in light of contemporary constitutional and domestic relations law, showing why the usual arguments against recognizing such unions are either weak or irrelevant. The Supreme Court has articulated numerous interests promoted by marriage, all of which apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. According to Strasser, the argument made most frequently to deny recognition to same-sex unions-that marriage exists to provide a setting for the production and raising of children-is in fact a reason to acknowledge such unions. The claim that marriage is for children biologically related to both parents is refuted in the case law, which treats biological and adopted children as legally indistinguishable. Strasser explains Baehr v. Lewin, the precedent setting case in Hawaii, and addresses the implications of state-by-state decisions to ban or recognize same-sex unions. He analyzes what it would mean to say that a policy violates the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution, and compares biased polices that target gays and lesbians with those that victimize racial minorities. Strasser argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is both unconstitutional and a public policy disaster. It does not give states additional rights with respect to which marriages they need not recognize, Strasser explains, but only with respect which divorces they need not recognize. For example, DOMA seems to allow an individual to avoid a court-imposed duty to support an ex-spouse of the same sex simply by changing his or her domicile. Moreover, Strasser argues, DOMA is an open invitation for states to demand exceptions that will wreak havoc in domestic relations law. In a recent response to conservative arguments about marriage, Legally Wed explicates established and involving legal principles, and shows how invidiously these have been applied to the issues of gay rights in general and same-sex unions in particular.